Homepages Home Page - GNVQ Intermediate Information & …homepages.shu.ac.uk/~edsjlc/ict/specifications/edexcel/... · 2006-10-10 · In some centres, printouts were not each clearly

GNVQ ICT Intermediate Examiners/Moderators Report �PAGE �1�

GNVQ

�

Examiner�s Report

GNVQ IntermediateInformation & Communication Technology

June 2003


Edexcel is one of the leading examining and awarding bodies in the UK and throughoutthe world. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational,occupational and specific programmes for employers.

Through a network of UK and overseas offices, Edexcel�s centres receive the supportthey need to help them deliver their education and training programmes to learners.

For further information please call our Customer Response Centre on 0870 240 9800, orvisit our website at www.edexcel.org.uk

June 2003

Publications Code G013843


All the material in this publication is copyright© Edexcel 2003


Contents

1. Examiner�s Report � Unit 1: Presenting Information

2. Examiner�s Report � Unit 5: Information Resources


London Qualifications Ltd holds the copyright for this publication. Further copies of theExaminer�s Reports may be obtained from Edexcel Publications.

Chief Examiner�s ReportGeneral Comments

This report provides detailed individual feedback for all the units examined in theSummer 2003 series.

In all units there was no overlap between the pre-prepared work and the examinationpaper, as indicated in the Teacher Guidance Notes that accompanied the pre-releasematerial. These Notes also indicated that the examination papers might includequestions on any part of the unit content as defined in the Assessment Evidence Gridand the What You Need To Learn section of the unit specification. Guidance was alsogiven to this effect in each Chief Examiner�s report since Summer 2001. However, therewas still evidence that candidates in some centres were not sufficiently prepared toanswer such questions.

There was evidence of some improvement in performance by candidates whencompared to previous examination series; however these general points on theperformance of candidates across all units still apply.

� It was apparent that some candidates were entered before they were ready.� Some candidates limited their answers to stating/ naming/ identifying when the

question asked for descriptions or explanations.� Some candidates do not read questions carefully enough. Key words are often

missed with candidates seemingly answering the question they would like toanswer rather than the actual question on the examination paper.

� Candidates had clearly been taught how to answer the Winter 2003 papers, tothe extent that many tried to fit the �Winter answers� to the Summer questions.

The following points are again made to help in the preparation of students for futureGNVQ examinations.

1. The papers will expect students to have a good knowledge andunderstanding of the syllabus specification. Papers will be testing theapplication of such knowledge to real or simulated situations.

2. Delivery of courses should include instruction on concepts, terminologies andtechniques and should also follow the vocational philosophy of learning bydoing and by studying what is happening in the real world.

3. Papers will be constructed to test, wherever possible, the following aspects ofeach unit:� The full content of the �what you need to learn�.� The �assessment evidence grid�.� Any additional points from the �essential information for teachers� which

relates to the content or assessment evidence grid.4. The assessment evidence grid provides an example of what might be tested

at each grade. The generic grading criteria will be used, with this, to allow all


parts of the content to be tested at any grade. Questions will be differentiatedaccording to the skill being tested and the level of understanding, analysis,reasoning, etc., required by the question.

Pre-prepared Work

The pre-prepared work (PPW) is intended to support the candidate�s learning andprovide an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their abilities.

However, there were some common problems associated with this work.

� In a few centres the work of all candidates was similar, indicating too muchguidance being given. In these centres, candidates were able to gain high markson their PPW, yet were unable to transfer skills and/or knowledge to answeringthe examination paper.

� The authentication statement is an important document and should be treatedwith respect. In some centres Teachers either did not sign the authenticationstatement for all candidates or allowed an authentication statement with aphotocopied signature to be submitted.

� Teachers signed authentication statements for a few candidates where a cursoryglance by the examiner indicated collusion between those candidates.

Common Administrative Problems

General

In several cases there were discrepancies between the number of candidates enteredfor an examination and the number of scripts submitted. This caused many difficulties forexaminers.

PPW

� A few centres are still submitting PPW in plastic wallets. This wastes theexaminer�s time.

� Treasury tags are sometimes attached in such a way that the examiner is unableto turn the pages to mark either PPW or examination answers.

� In some centres, printouts were not each clearly identified with the candidate�s,name, number and centre number.

� Some candidates submitted multiple printouts for a task or printouts of tasks thatwere not set for this examination.

� Some centres did not include signed authentication statements for all candidates.� PPW is a part of the examination. �Clean� copies should be submitted. Teachers

should not permit candidates to submit marked PPW.

Scripts

� Scripts were not always sorted in the same order as the attendance register.


� Where sticky labels were not available, some scripts were named but did nothave centre identification on the script.

� Some centres did not include an attendance register of any kind with the scripts.� Where typed lists were included, the names were frequently not in any relevant

order. Absent candidates were often excluded from such lists.


BLANK


Intermediate GNVQ � Unit 1: Presenting InformationGeneral

There was evidence of some candidates being entered for Intermediate GNVQ whenthey should have been doing the Foundation level. Such candidates have moreopportunity of demonstrating their ability when entered appropriately.

It was clear which centres had prepared students well for this examination and had givensufficient guidance on the pre-prepared work.

Many candidates have clearly prepared for this examination using the January paper, tothe extent that they try to fit correct answers from January to a completely differentquestion. This was particularly evident in question 3(b)(iii), 4(b)(i) and most of question6.

Examination Paper

Many candidates used �easy to read/ understand�, �looks better�, �stands out�,�attractive�, to answer many questions, making little effort to relate their answers eitherto the question being asked or to the particular document to which the question referred.

Candidates should be encouraged to use terms more precisely. They use picturesinterchangeably with graphics and also to mean photographs. Word art is given as atype of graphic when it is really a graphical text �font�. They use boxes to mean both textboxes and tables. Many are confused in their use of title, heading and header.

Many candidates proceeded to write their answers without reading in full what thequestion was asking them. For example, in Question 1(b), candidates often wrote aboutwhat was wrong with the display rather than how it could be improved. This problem wasevident throughout the paper.

Some candidates did not appear to be familiar with the scenario. In order to reduce theamount of text given in the questions, there is an assumption that candidates, havingspent approximately twenty hours working on their Pre-prepared Work, have anunderstanding of the scenario.

Question 1

Many candidates wrongly identified logo as a presentation technique. Some candidatesused vague terminology such as box instead of text box. A significant number did notread the question properly and provided critical comments on the screen display,suggesting improvements in part (a). Some gave techniques that were not used, such astable or italics. Many candidates did not realise they were looking at a screen displaydespite this being stated at the start of the question.


Many candidates repeated techniques in part (b). Many focussed primarily on changingthe presentation or adding extra items rather than improving what is already there. Waysto improve were often too vague to gain marks; such suggestions included �more clipart�, �use colour�, �rearrange things� and �add a background�.

Question 2

Candidates from many centres clearly had not looked at business letters. Manycandidates had no idea of the layout. The recipient�s address, when included, wasusually on the right. Ref: was rarely included, subject line only a little more often.Candidates frequently did not use �Dear� in the salutation. An upper case �S� in sincerelyin the closure was common although many used the wrong closure. Many candidatesput the signature beneath the name. Several candidates wrote an e-mail rather than aformal letter.

Candidates generally wrote about content rather than presentation in response to (b).Rote responses such as �formal�/ �informal� were common.

Few candidates were able to give a comprehensive response to (c), many wrote aboutthe formality of a letter, others stated that not everyone had access to e-mail. Somecandidates attempted to fit an answer from a previous paper to this, different, question.

Question 3

In part (a)(i), candidates were often able to give techniques but were unable to describethem, instead giving a reason for using the technique. A large minority incorrectly namedWord Art or clip art as techniques used.

Most candidates clearly did not understand what was meant by writing style. Very fewdescribed the writing style used in part (ii), giving font styles, bold or large font in theiranswer. More able candidates were able to answer part (iii) in context and identified theneed for a formal style with adult language, and the importance of safety information foruse by park staff.

Part (b)(i), was well answered by most candidates, but few were able to describe thetechniques as used in the notice.

In part (ii) more candidates recognised the writing style and gave correct answers suchas informal, but weaker candidates again confused writing styles with presentationtechniques. Frequent answers to part (iii) were �easy to read�, �easy to understand�, etc.Other candidates� answers related to the equivalent question in January, stating why thepresentation techniques made the notice fit for purpose.

Question 4

Most candidates made sensible attempts to part (a) although a few omitted it altogether.The errors most commonly missed were �OAP�s�, missing web-site address, wrong year


(2001). Candidates did not always clearly indicate the error; some circled completesections or lines. Other candidates circled an error but then shot themselves in the footby indicating an incorrect correction, e.g. �st missing� � implying that the park nameshould be Queuest.

Most candidates answered part (b)(i) very well but some did not identify words from theadvert. Some gave answers to January�s paper, giving �places� or �names� as instanceswhere correct spellings are indicated by an error. Most candidates correctly answered�grammar checker� to (ii) but a significant number left it blank or just stated �grammar�(which is not a software feature).

Most candidates showed the word �main� on the advert, but fewer than half used arecognisable insertion symbol.

Sensible reasons were usually given in part (d) but only the better candidates gaveexpansions worth the second mark.

Question 5

Part (a) was well answered with the majority of candidates gaining 3 or 4 marks.

Candidates from the centres that had covered �forms of information� as understood bythe specification did very well on part (b). They were able to identify (i) as �text�, producea table or chart in (ii), correctly identify it in (iii) and name at least one other form ofinformation in (iv). Candidates from other centres made guesses, such as �formal� inanswer to (b)(i) and �memo�, �flyer� or other documents in answer to (iii) and (iv). Theiranswers to (ii) were most commonly bulleted text (which is the same form of informationas that given). Where candidates produced charts or tables in (ii) they frequently omittedthe titled and were often inconsistent in giving the times.

Question 6

Part (a) was generally well answered although some candidates were too vague to gainmarks.

Most candidates gained at least 2 marks for (b) with a significant number getting all 3marks by recognising that copyright is the relevant law and expanding that to show theyunderstood about copyright. Some candidates talk about non-legal issues to do withchoosing a name, such as meaningful names. Others decided that this was the questionwhere they should talk about health and safety issues!

Part (c) tested a part of the specification that has not been tested previously in theexternal examinations. Few candidates understood what was required, failing to see thesignificance of the word �manage�. Most decided that this was the question wheresecurity, data protection or ergonomic issues were required.

Part (d) was generally well answered although weaker candidates continued to talkabout spell checker or grammar checker issues.


Pre-Prepared WorkGeneral

There was evidence of teacher-direction in some centres which, in some cases, causedall candidates from a particular centre to lose marks; for example, in some centres allcandidates omitted to include �matters arising� in the agenda.

The standard of the flyer, ticket and leaflet was generally high, although there was a lackof attention to detail; for example, transcription errors in ride names. Candidates tendedto be weaker in the production of business documents. The specification indicates thatcandidates should study a variety of business documents; some candidates have clearlynot done this.

Task 1

Many candidates made no mention of the opening in Summer 2003 of Terror Zone,some had no graphics, most had the 5 ride names together with 2 or their own, but therewere many transcription errors in the ride names and slogan. A significant number didnot identify the company, Adventure Quest, in the flyer. Few double-sided flyers werelabelled �back� and �front�.

Task 2

Many made no mention of Adventure Quest on the tickets; few tickets were uniquelyidentified, either by specified date or ticket number. Most were the correct size and welllaid out.

Task 3

The agenda was poorly done. Most made no mention of Adventure Quest. A lot had thedate as 23 May for the meeting and didn�t have a venue or purpose of meeting. Somehad the standard agenda items present, but most didn�t have all of them. Very few had3 items on the agenda relevant to the Terror Zone Preview.

Task 4

Leaflets tended to be either very good or very poor. Common errors include:

� Not being designed to be folded in a sensible way, having just 2 �pages� leaving the2 inside or outside pages blank;

� Messages being omitted, or from the Head rather than the Deputy Head (CarolinePrestwich), or from Muriel McCann (Adventure Quest);

� Leaflets having insufficient detail about the event.

Several candidates were not clear about the purpose of the leaflet, with some justpromoting Adventure Quest.

Task 5


Many candidates seem to have used invoice templates, but omitted to enter all therelevant details. Few included an invoice number, customer number or invoice date.The VAT issue was frequently misunderstood; many candidates added VAT on to thegiven prices and the rate of 17.5% was often omitted. There were frequent errors in thegiven addresses including incorrect capitalisation, wrong or missing e-mail address.Amounts were poorly aligned.Standard Ways of Working

The majority of candidates had the work in the right order and only had 1 copy of each ofthe tasks, but quite a number had spelling errors that would have been detected hadspell checker been used. Candidates should be aware that extra care should be takenwith spelling where Word Art is used.

Some documents were still being submitted in plastic wallets and tasks wereoccasionally attached in the centre of the script rather than the back.

Some candidates did not identify their documents with their name, centre number andthe task.

Some candidates included the whole of the candidate brief with their pre-prepared work.The authentication statement should be removed from the brief for inclusion and the restof the brief discarded.


BLANK


INTERMEDIATE GNVQ �UNIT 5: INFORMATION RESOURCES

General

Generally candidates attempted all questions and were happiest with questions requiringone-word answers. Pass candidates found explanations/giving advantages anddisadvantages difficult.

There was evidence that there was enough time for the candidates to complete thepaper.

There was evidence that some centres had not covered the unit specifications asstudents were lacking in the identification of technical terms and associated meanings.

Examination Paper

Question 1

Overall this question was attempted by most of the candidates. Candidates lost marksfor giving answers such as �easier�, �quicker� and �faster� without expansion.

On the whole part (a)(i) was answered well, however those candidates who statednewspaper for this fell down on marks for (ii) as majority of the candidates then statedthey could look for job advertisements which were applicable to stationary suppliers, oreven advertise jobs in the newspapers. Unless candidates chose the yellowpages/directories in (i), they found it very hard to get many marks for the explanation forhow to find source. Some candidates misunderstood the question completely givingtotally incorrect answers relating to advertising for a supplier!

Most candidates identified the keywords for the search in part (b)(i). Candidates found ithard to get the expansion mark in (ii) as many just said �be more specific�. A fewcandidates described how to refine with reference to the search but spoke generally.There were some who referred to quotation marks and use of AND; generally, thesewere on higher scoring scripts.

In part (c)(i) most candidates had a good idea about one advantage but not many got thesecond. Answers were often vague. There was widespread use of �quick�, �easy� and�fast� without specific explanation. Very few scored more than 2 marks in (ii), manytalked about credit card/personal details being hacked, etc., but did not mention thembeing used. Candidates often mentioned not being able to feel goods but did notexpand to talk about not being as expected on arrival. Lots talked about delayed in postetc.

Part (d) was generally answered well.


Question 2

Marks gained were much higher for this question, although part (b)(i) did get somemethods of communicating with animals. Another approach taken to this question wasto give methods of communication with people who might adopt animals. Theseanswers gave methods of advertising to possible adopters.

Part (a) was generally answered well although it was clear that some candidates had notread the case study, thus giving totally incorrect answers to (i). Some candidates did notunderstand (ii) and responded with the Bakes N Shakes, Wildlife Gifts, The Infostore, orthe Animal Information Centre, missing facts from the case study.

Overall part (b)(i) was answered well however some candidates� responses were �textmessaging�, �WAP phone�, �Mobile phone�. Most candidates were able to write downfour methods of communication, but the advantages were not answered in enoughdetail. �Fax� was used but rarely expanded correctly. Candidates found it hard toexpand �e-mail� with most answers being too vague i.e. �it�s easier�, �faster�, etc. Manydescribed how to ... rather than giving advantages. Most candidates got 3 or 4 fields in(ii), but many did not know what a field name was; they had worked this out to besomething relating to a database and as a result their answers included modules,macros, queries and forms. Other candidates answered this question well but lostmarks due to the fact that they stated �Name� as a field name. For this questioncandidates also gave �Date of Birth� � but did not state whose date of birth � and �sex�.

Some candidates were confused as to what they were being asked in (c) andtransposed their answers, offering responses to (i) more suited to (ii). Those candidatesthat answered the question without transposing or misinterpreting lost marks in (i) bystating the use of floppy disk, and removing the floppy disks when they leave the room.Candidates seemed to have little concept of PHYSICAL security - lots said �Alarms�;many just said �Passwords�. Very few candidates mentioned firewall in (ii) and althoughmany candidates said password they referred to a �secure password�. No-one got�remote password�.

Question 3

Part (a) was the best question on the paper for many candidates, although marks werelost for not enough detail in the answers. Some candidates made the assumption thatGeorge wanted to travel that day. Methods of communication were identified wellthough many did not say who to phone, the disadvantages were identified but manycandidates offered 2 separate disadvantages instead of a disadvantage and expansion.

A lot of candidates did not know the difference between and input and output device,and in a lot of cases part (b) was left blank. A number of candidates said CD-ROM in (i)and screen with no other explanation in (ii). It was obvious that this part of thespecifications was not covered. Part (iii) was mostly answered OK although a number ofcandidates did not relate the question to �accessing information on Snow Leopards� fromthe CD ROM encyclopaedia. Some candidates either did not read part (iv) correctly orthey did not understand what was being asked of them, as a number of candidatesstated that they would flick between the article and a new word processing document


and type in the words themselves. Most candidates however got at least 2 marks fromcopy and paste.

Part (c) was, on the whole, answered reasonably well. Although most candidatesunderstood the meaning of copyright, very few were awarded 2 marks as the legalissues were rarely discussed. Part (ii) was answered well even if they had not answeredpart (i) correctly.

Question 4

Most candidates got four points in (a), although there was some repetition. Wherecandidates failed to gain the 4 marks, they either did not respond in question format, orthey asked questions that did not relate to the range of drinks, with questions such as�What is your age?�.

Most said interview or questionnaire in (b), although some missed the point completely.Not many got the expansion marks. Many candidates used survey indicating that werephysically asking rather than using a paper based questionnaire. On the whole, thisquestion was answered badly and very few candidates obtained more than 2 marks.Knowledge or understanding of the data collection process was weak.

Part (c) was not very well answered; most candidates thought of ways to present, butcould not describe ways to present information.

It was evident that some centres have not taught the candidates about informationoverload, so there was lot of guess work.

Question 5

This question had some of the lowest marks gained overall.

Part (a) was very disappointing. Most candidates said alphabetical, but did not say byauthor / title etc. Many candidates obtained zero for this question. It was evident thatsome centres had not mentioned the Dewey Decimal system.

Part (b) was prone to the �faster�, �easier� answer. Candidates seemed to understandwhy the computer-based catalogue was more useful than the card system in terms ofsearching, but found it hard to express their ideas. Generally it appeared that manycandidates do not have experience of using a computer-based catalogue.

Few candidates obtained more than one mark for part (i), Most candidates� answerswere about finding the information, not searches or editing etc. Very few candidatesobtained full marks for part (ii) and again tried to offer 2 disadvantages rather than 1 andexpansion. Although it was mostly answered satisfactorily, many said �could loseinformation� they did not add �if not saved�. Part (iii) was answered very badly on thewhole. Many answered this question as if they were searching for anything on theInternet, or if they were setting up a database query because it was not obvious whattype of resource they were looking for.



Pre-Prepared WorkOn the whole, it appears that some centres had not given any guidance whatsoever.One centre in particular must have interpreted the question incorrectly as every singlecandidate in the centre made an itinerary from Manchester to Brisbane; there was asimilar situation in another centre but going from a location in southern England asopposed to Doncaster! It was obvious that some centres did not refer to the teacher�sguidance.

The Teacher Guidance Notes gives plenty of advice regarding the contents of the tasks,but Task 4 was often lacking in the detail suggested in these notes. Other guidance isfound on the FAQ page of the Edexcel web site.

Task 1

Very few candidates obtained full marks for task 1(a), key steps were often omitted.One centre had completed this task in both the form of a data flow diagram and steps,the data flow diagram was not appropriate, particularly when bearing in mind how muchtime the candidates would have taken to complete this task. Other candidates hadwritten the steps that they would follow in the past tense, therefore, losing at least onemark.

On the whole part (b) was answered well; however some candidates from at least onecentre had drawn the image of the animal. Several candidates had extended the factsonto 2 pages. There was confusion over origin versus habitat, and occasionally thedescription was not a description of the animal but its behaviour. Most centres hadencouraged candidates to use clearly signposted headings, making it easier to mark.

Task 2

As in task 1(a) some candidates from one centre did task 2(a) in the form of a data flowdiagram, this looked very well presented but in fact it would have been better as a list ofsimple steps. Candidates found it virtually impossible to get 4 marks for this question.Many concentrated on the journey rather than the process of obtaining the detail for theitinerary. Candidates are so used to Broadband and searching using search engines,they missed the first few marks when explaining the steps as they did not state whatthey had actually done.

Task 2(b) was generally answered well, but some candidates printed out the web pagerather than simply screen dumping the image. In addition, several used text boxes forannotation or included a series of screen dumps indicating that they had not read thetask properly.

Task 2(c) should have been a straightforward question to enable candidates to gainmaximum marks. However this was not the case. Answers were not always in tableformat and this made it difficult to read.

Centres failed to encourage their candidates to signpost the key elements sought in thetask which was easily achieved in a simple table structure, as mentioned in the teacher�s


guidance. Some candidates had placed a screen shot of details of train times for thejourney in the middle of the itinerary; others used a list but did not highlight relevant data,on occasion a series of screen dumps was used to reflect the journey stages.

Some candidates did not show the duration time or the arrival point (Toowoomba) theyjust mentioned Australia, so they lost marks. There seemed to be confusion over thetiming of the journey.

Task 3

On the whole this was answered well although it was evident that some centres had nottaught candidates much about the Data Protection Act. Some candidates had showninitiative and had put the principles from the DPA into their own words so that peopleworking at the sanctuary could understand, yet often they lost marks here because thelanguage used was poor.

Task 4

On the whole the bibliography was answered well. In some cases, candidates didinclude the author of the book. Often the layout of the bibliography was not clear, forexample not itemised task by task, making it harder to mark. In many cases candidateslisted search engines used rather than websites for tasks 2 and 3.

Standard Ways of Working

On the whole candidates achieved good marks; most documents were in the correctorder. Candidates lost marks mostly for poor presentation of the itinerary and for usingmore than one side of A4 for the fact sheet.

Some centres are not following guidance about the PPW in terms of attaching it to theback of the script with a treasury tag. In some cases plastic wallets were still being usedand in others PPW was linked to the script inside the front cover.


Chief Moderator�s ReportThis report provides feedback on all the units moderated in the Summer 2003 series.The report gives general comments that are applicable to all units and then providesspecific comments related to the most common difficulties encountered in each unit.Please read both sections.

In highlighting the weaknesses observed in many centres there is a danger that Ioverlook the outstanding work produced in others. To those centres I offer mycompliments and congratulations � it was a joy to see the knowledge, skills andunderstanding evidenced by their students in portfolios produced in response to goodteaching and interesting, relevant and well-designed assignments. Well done to thosecentres.

As the number of students doing this qualification continues to rise it is heartening to seemany centres raising their level of achievement through a systematic approach to thefeedback they receive from various sources. In these centres the following materials areread, digested and incorporated into improvements in delivery and assessment practice:� centre report following moderation� Chief Moderator�s Report� GNVQ ICT section of the Edexcel website (eg portfolio guidance, forms and tracking

sheets)� professional development and training materials (national and customised).

Students in these centres benefit enormously from the resultant increase inunderstanding of the specification and assessment methodology.

However there are still too many centres that appear to be delivering the qualification inignorance � either of the qualification itself or a specific lack of understanding of ICTsystems and software. It also appears that in some centres the deliverers of thequalification are not receiving adequate training and development � either because theperson who introduced the qualification has moved on or because the centre believesthe learning materials used provide the �complete solution�. All too often this has provednot to be the case. Training in the qualification, and also in some centres in the use ofspecific software packages eg database applications, vector- and bitmap-graphicspackages, etc, should be ongoing.

In some centres it appeared that tutors were �teaching to the Pass grade� and making noattempts to support student achievement at higher grades. This was extremelydisappointing. Limiting student achievement is completely against the philosophy ofGNVQ. This moderation process is designed to provide feedback so that centres canidentify how to move students on to higher grades.

The most popular optional units continue to be Y204P (Design Project), Y206P(Graphics) and Y207P (Multimedia).

Getting the Level Right


Overall there was more poorly presented and assessed work at Intermediate level thanthere was at Foundation level. In some centres assessors appear to be unclear of howto award points between 0 and 16.

Many centres need to gain a much better understanding of the Intermediate level (ieprogressing from Foundation and on to Advanced) and of Pass, Merit and Distinctionquality work.

Before starting a unit it may be advisable to look at the relevant unit at the level below (ieFoundation) to see what it is their Intermediate students are already expected to know,understand and be able to do. They might also look at a relevant unit at the level above(ie VCE) to see what students should be aspiring to. At Intermediate level studentsshould be taught procedural skills so that they have a structure for tackling any ICTproblem presented to them. They need to analyse before designing � thinking aboutwhat it is the user needs in order that what they produce will be �fit for purpose�. It mightbe useful to reinforce this �systems life cycle approach� at the start of each unit.

As they move from Pass to Merit to Distinction students should be taking ownership forthe quality of their work. They must understand that in order to produce somethinguseful for their intended user/reader they must first analyse their requirements and plancarefully. Having produced a solution to the user�s problem they must test it to makesure that obvious errors are eliminated and that it works as they intended it to in theirdesigns. They would be expected to work smarter � producing better quality work ratherthan more of the same quality. Merit students will be able to work without too muchdirection from their tutor and will clearly evidence that they are capable of working todeadline. Higher grade students will demonstrate their knowledge and understanding ofICT systems from the onset � in their analyses, their plans and first drafts, their tests andrefinements, and in their final evaluation. This evaluation will be seen from the user�sperspective and improvements will be expected. They will use the correct technicallanguage in their explanations, evaluations, comparisons and improvements.

Achievement tended to be higher where students had extensively annotated their work.Annotation can be used to successfully evidence a number of Pass grade criteria egwhere they sorted a database or how they used the software to produce a macro.However in using the correct technical terms to explain their actions or justify theirchoices they are also accruing evidence to support some of the higher-grade criteria.Where students do nothing except provide printouts of documents it is left to theassessor /moderator to work out what has been done and why. These students arelimiting themselves to lower grades.

What to Present for Assessment/Moderation?

There was still evidence to indicate that some centres were unclear as to what topresent for assessment. It was distressing for moderators to observe that in severalcentres candidates had put in a great deal of hard work but had not effectivelyaddressed the assessment evidence requirements for even the most basic Pass criteria.

Students are expected to produce evidence to meet the banner and grade criteriaspecified in the Assessment Evidence Grid for the relevant unit. Further clarification ofindividual criteria is provided in the What You Need To Learn (WYNTL) section and inthe Essential Information for Teachers (including the grade descriptors in that section).


Whilst assessment practice has been modified since the introduction of this qualificationto include some compensation at Merit/Distinction level and for small parts at Pass levelit is still advisable to instruct students to provide hard evidence for each component partof each criterion.

There is an expectation that students are taught the theory from the WYNTL and thenapply that theory to an ICT problem in a relevant vocational context. The evidence fromthe stages that the student goes through in solving that problem will form the basis oftheir portfolio work. Learning materials/formative work should not be included with thesummative portfolio work.

Learning Materials

Some centres are being led too much by the learning materials (eg books, on-linecourses, etc) they have purchased. First and foremost they need to understand thequalification � its structure, the levels, the teaching requirement, the assessment. It isthe centre�s responsibility to ensure that the learning materials they use providesufficient opportunities for all candidates to fully cover the evidence requirements. Foreven the compulsory units eg unit2 databases, but especially for the specialist optionalunits eg graphics, multimedia, etc an experienced ICT teacher or someone familiar withthe use of the software in a vocational context is needed.

Too often we found that students were being taught �by rote� � following prescriptiveassignments that merely illustrated that they could follow instructions i.e. do this, now dothat. The prescriptive approach disadvantages higher ability Intermediate candidates, asthey do not demonstrate progression from ideas, through draft design to stages ofimplementation. Better teaching materials will provide the students with a structure forsolving ICT problems � a �systems life cycle approach� that they can apply to any ICTproblem. The assignment will be open-ended so that the students are free to developtheir own individual solutions to the problem. This approach will encourageindependence and will allow them to demonstrate their ability to think.

Resources

Edexcel GNVQs are vocational courses. The aims of the course are stated (on page 11of the Intermediate ICT specification) as encouraging students to:

� use ICT for the presentation and manipulation of information� acquire knowledge and understanding of the prominent features of ICT as

reflected by its use across many industry, commerce and service sectors� acquire knowledge and understanding of the hardware and software used to

provide ICT services� acquire and apply the basic skills and techniques needed by those working in

ICT services� develop an appreciation of the role played by ICT in society as a whole.

In good centres the staff make every attempt to incorporate relevant vocational contextsinto their teaching. The vocational principle of �learning by doing� is foremost in theirminds. Optional units are selected only if they have the resources and staff expertise tosupport that specialism.


In all too many centres we observed students undertaking specialist units eg graphics,without suitable software and/or hardware and sometimes, with apparently no specialistto support them. �Making do� with word-processing and painting packages (instead ofthe required vector-based and bitmap-based software) misleads the students aboutcommercial software. The centre has a responsibility to ensure that all aspects of thespecification are covered and this must guide their choice of optional unit.

Still Errors in Criteria Common to all Units

It was disappointing to observe that there were still centres who were failing to addressthe criteria common to all units even though previous Chief Moderator Reports haveoutlined the same points � backing up, independent work, meeting deadlines, checkingaccuracy, evaluation/improvements. Further explanations on all these points areprovided again in the sections below.


Common Administrative Problems

Sampling and Supply of Work

Most centres followed the instructions for sampling and provided the correct number andrange of student portfolios. However there were still some centres that did not do so.Failure to follow procedures can delay the moderation process and centres risk thetimely release of their results. The �Guidance for Centres� on the moderation ofportfolios should always be read very carefully.

Most centres submitted their samples by the correct dates. However there were aproportion of centres that submitted late and/or failed to submit the second sample bythe required deadline. Again, any failure to follow procedures puts the centre�s results atrisk.

OPTEMS

The moderation process uses the point score recorded on the OPTEMS and sent in toEdexcel. It does not use the score recorded on the front of student portfolios.Occasionally the two marks differed. Centres are therefore advised to ensure that thesemarks are transcribed carefully on to the OPTEMS.

Packaging, Organisation of Work

Moderators moderate each unit separately and thus expect to be able find all the workfor that one unit presented together in a well-ordered �portfolio�. Moderation re-assessesthe work against the assessment evidence grid for each unit. In several centres it wasdifficult to discern which material was being presented for which unit � the entire studentoutput being presented in one disorganised package.

Extraneous Material

Most centres ensured that all evidence presented was relevant to the criteria beingassessed. However in a small number of centres a sometimes considerable amount ofadditional material had been included � formative exercises, class notes, etc. This madeit very difficult for moderators to find the relevant materials.

General Portfolio Issues

Level of Entry

It was disappointing to see that some centres are still entering all their students atIntermediate level when some of the students are clearly operating below that level andstruggling to evidence even the Pass criteria. If it is not possible to identify beforeregistration whether a student is Foundation level or Intermediate then it is possible totransfer that student�s registration at a later date should they subsequently be found tobe operating below, or in some cases, above that level. Centres should contact Entriesand Certification to discuss the issues surrounding transfers.


It is always better if students can be put on the correct course from the start. Centrestherefore need to gain a solid understanding of the difference in the requirementsbetween Foundation and Intermediate levels so that they can conduct an accuratediagnosis at the start of the course.

Cheating

It was alarming to see the level of incidence of cheating/collusion increasing. Evenwhere assessors had signed the OPTEMS sheets to indicate that the work presentedwas the student�s own it was possible for moderators to see, after only a cursory glance,that some of the work was identical. The assessor could easily have detected thisduring assessment. In addition there were several instances where identical workappeared to have been assessor-led, ie the class having been provided with identicalsheets to be included in the portfolios. Centres are reminded that students should beproviding hard evidence for each criterion that shows that they alone have producedwhat is required.

An incidence of cheating can put the results of all students from the centre at risk and/orcan delay the process of release of results. Centres are thus asked to (i) ensure that allstudents are aware of the seriousness with which Edexcel takes cheating, (ii) takeadequate steps to reduce incidences of cheating and (iii) check all work for cheatingbefore signing the authentication statement on the OPTEMS form.

Assessment

Centres are advised to ensure that they fully understand the current Joint Council forGeneral Qualifications (JCGQ) guidance on compensation (at Merit/Distinction level) andsmall parts (at Pass level). Some centres were not applying these rules correctly and asa result their assessment decisions may not have met National Standards.

Internal Standardisation

Where there are several assessors in one programme it is critical that the centreconducts an internal standardisation activity to ensure that all work presented formoderation reflects the assessment practice at the centre. Internal standardisation canhelp to ensure that all assessors are assessing in the same way and to the samestandard.

Evidence

Yet again, there were a number of centres who submitted soft evidence in the form ofdisks, CD ROMs, etc. Section 5.5 of the �Guidance for Centres� specifically stated that�Due to the variation in software existing for computer based evidence, centres mustpresent hard copies of any of this type of work�.

Use of Checklists, Annotation by Teacher

Logical sequencing and signposting to identify where each criterion had been met mademoderation much more efficient. Many centres were making good use of checklists to


identify where evidence could be found. Such checklists are available on the ICT areaof the Edexcel website under �Forms and Tracking Sheets�. If centres devise their ownthey must be careful that they are an accurate reflection of the Assessment EvidenceGrids. Occasionally students missed evidence out because they had not been identifiedon the centre-devised checklist.

Witness Statements

There are very few criteria where hard evidence cannot be generated to supportachievement. Where it is not possible to produce such evidence witness statements canbe used. These statements should be individualised for each candidate and shouldexplain exactly what the candidate has been seen to do and when. They should besigned and dated by the assessor. Witness statements should not be mass-producedphotocopies of the same statement, nor should they be �ticklist� statements lacking anywritten commentary.

User Needs

In most units students are required (in P1) to describe the user�s needs. Many studentsappear unable to do other than cut and paste the user needs from the assignment theirtutor has given them. Spending time on this criterion before rushing into the assignmentcan improve attainment significantly. By defining what the user needs the student thenhas a list of criteria for use later in their evaluation. At that stage they can accuratelydetermine whether their solution does what the user wanted it to. In addition time spenton P1 usually produces solutions that are well planned and thought through � ratherthan obviously developed as they go along.

Standard Ways of Working

Most of the internally assessed units have a small section at the end of the WYNTLentitled �standard ways of working�. A more detailed description of the requirements isgiven in unit 1 on pages 30-32.The section covers many of the criteria that permeate every unit including the need to:

� ensure that information they produce is accurate and readable� plan their work to produce what is required to given deadlines� use file names that are sensible and which help to remind them of the contents� store files where they can easily find them in the directory/folder structure� keep information secure:

o by saving work regularly, and using different filenameso by keeping dated backup copies of files on another disk and in another

locationStandard ways of working (sww) encourages students to develop a good discipline forworking within ICT. In the best work it is easily seen that this discipline has beeneffectively taught from the start and students are taught �working skills� that help thembecome effective in the workplace. These students fully understand the need to useheaders/footers and to save with sensible filenames, etc.

Unfortunately moderators still see some work where students have not adopted thisdiscipline and continue to use inappropriate language in their portfolios and in thenaming of their files.


Checking Work for Accuracy

The requirement to check work for accuracy occurs twice in most units � at Pass andagain at Merit level - and many centres still do not appear to understand the differencebetween the two. At both levels there should be some explicit evidence that thecandidate has actually checked their work � either before and after evidence, or a list ofidentified errors, or where the work produced is error free, narrative of the process ofchecking could be included. If there is no explicit evidence of correcting then thereshould be few obvious errors remaining.

At Pass level candidates should verify that data entry is correct. At this level studentswould be expected to check that the data they have entered is accurate, e.g. spelling,punctuation and grammar.

At Merit level we are looking for higher order skills and students would be expected tocheck the accuracy of their work as a whole �

� Do the formulae/functions work as expected? (manual checking can prove theydo)

� Does the validation work? Are the error messages correct?� Does the navigation work in their website / PowerPoint presentation?� Does the layout make it easy to use/read etc?

Test plans can evidence this criterion � especially if they include a column that detailsaction taken if the outcome isn�t as expected. The solution or correction of errors foundat this stage can also help lift students into Distinction (e.g. Unit 3 editing program code).It will certainly help with their evaluations.

Independent Work/Meeting Deadlines

In a surprisingly large number of centres tutors failed to evidence this criterionadequately. Quite often a tick on a checklist was the only evidence presented.

At Intermediate level students should be moving to work independently of theirteacher/tutor � certainly at Merit level it is expected that the student should be able tocomplete an assignment without being guided at every step of the way. Following a setof instructions is not �independent work�.

A brief, signed and dated statement should be provided that indicates the level ofsupport given to the student. Edexcel checklists provide a space for this on the frontcover. Giving the deadline date for the unit and the date that the candidate actuallyhanded in the work is an easy way of meeting the second part of the criterion. Again, asignature is required from the assessor.

Use of Headers and Footers

Students need to understand the purpose of headers and footers in the identification andlocation of documents for future use. Candidates should follow this standard way ofworking in the organisation of their own work but should also be able to consider theiruser and provide appropriate headers/footers for the context in which they are working.


Backing up of Work

In some instances, students did not appear to have backed up any of their work. Backingup is a process that the students must undertake themselves (i.e. not a reliance ontechnicians incrementally backing up the system). They need to prevent the loss of theirwork by saving to somewhere that is remote from their main work area. Backing up offiles is usually evidenced by screen shots before and after saving in a secondarylocation e.g. saving onto floppy disk, emailing to another computer (e.g. at home). Ifneither of these is possible then we will accept regular saving, saving under anotherfilename or saving in a separate back-up folder in their work area.

Annotations

Some students are still reluctant to write on their work. Annotations are the biggestsingle source of evidence of understanding. If students can write on their work why, howand what they have done they are providing evidence for higher grade criteria.Annotation can be handwritten on prints/screenshots, printed boxes + arrows, ornarrative which refers to prints/screenshots. If students can use correct technicallanguage in their explanations then they have an even better chance of a Merit or higher.

Evaluations

Very few candidates were able to produce constructive evaluations that viewed theproduct through the eyes of the user. Those candidates who did succeed in this areahad sought feedback from a �user� who used the system and provided feedback, whichwas then incorporated into the evaluation. The best type of user was someone otherthan a peer. Very few solutions are perfect and in commercial situations initial testing isviewed as part of the development process. Improvements are expected and studentsmust realise that errors are acceptable at this level. Too many students stated that theirproduct �worked fine�. Students who had kept a log of their progress were able to easilyidentify the problems they had encountered and explain how they had overcome them.

Use of Technical Language

Distinction candidates are expected to be fluent in the technical language associatedwith the unit under study. They must avoid vague, �person-off-the-street� descriptionsand explanations and they must not use technical terms incorrectly. Better candidateswill embrace the opportunity to annotate all aspects of their work and try to be precise intheir descriptions.

Portfolio Guidance

More detailed notes on generic issues and on the more popular portfolio units areprovided in the GNVQ ICT area of the Edexcel website under �portfolio guidance�.


Unit 2 � Handling Information (Y202P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

Assessors tended to be overgenerous in the awarding of points at Distinction level. Toachieve at this level students must show an in-depth understanding of databases andspreadsheets� and use complex facilities efficiently and effectively ie they must work,must be appropriate and must help the user become more efficient.

Banner - Relational Database

Chief Moderator�s Reports over the past two series have identified that students are notproducing databases that are �relational�. The definition for this is given at the top ofpage 43 of the Intermediate specification. The diagram and associated text illustratethat a relational database is considered to be two or more tables linked through a one-to-many relationship, primary key to foreign key. Whilst this diagram uses three tables, twowill suffice but if linked through one-to-one relationships the database would NOT bedeemed to be relational.

Single table databases, or database tables linked only through a one-to-one relationship,must be viewed as GNVQ Foundation standard. At Intermediate level students areexpected to be progressing beyond Foundation level towards the VCE level where aproperly constructed relational database, correctly normalised, is expected.

It would appear that some centres are under the impression that if students use arelational database software package then everything they produce using the softwarewill be a relational database � this is not the case.

Students who do not correctly evidence a relational database will not meet therequirements for the Unit 2 Banner or for Pass criteria 2, 4 and 5 � and will not achieve aPass Grade.

This problem is compounded where students are allowed to have free choice. Wherestaff confidence with database software is low then centres would be advised to presentthe students with a limited range of ICT problems for scenarios that �work� ie have thepotential to produce a correctly structured database eg any hiring business (video, cars,construction equipment), any retail business (suppliers database), etc.

P3, P4, M1, M2, D3 � Spreadsheet Facilities

Much can also be said about spreadsheets that do not provide the capacity to utilise therequired range of facilities. P3, P4, M1, M2 and D3 require students to evidence aspecific list of spreadsheet facilities eg IF�THEN, relative and absolute cell references,etc. If the problem presented by the student does not provide the scope to use thesefacilities then the student may not achieve the grade s/he deserves. �Bolt-on�spreadsheet tasks specifically to show how to use an �if statement� are not in the spirit ofthe unit. The model produced should be sufficiently complex to enable this to beintegrated.Rather than provide one assignment for all or the other extreme of free choice, it mightbe better to allow choice from a restricted range of problems all of which provide the


opportunity to evidence all the assessment criteria, including the generation of charts orgraphs!

P1 - User Requirements

Very few students produced good evidence for this criterion, which can contribute to M5,D1 and D2. Most candidates merely regurgitated the brief that had been set by theirtutor instead of thinking through what output/information their user needed, what datawas available to their user and how they (as the systems designer) were going toprocess that data to produce the output required (eg what queries and reports will berequired to meet the user needs? what calculations are required?). Rough plans helpedthe better students to organise their thinking.

P4 � Data Processing SkillsA significant number of portfolios failed to evidence all the components of P4. Failure toevidence their ability to utilise basic data processing tools can work against studentscapable of higher grades. Many centres continue to misunderstand �prediction�.Students should be aware of the advantages of using a spreadsheet to model data andbetter assignments provide scope for the students to carry out �What If� processing. Theprediction of specific test results (e.g. manually checking formulae) can also evidencethis component of P4.

All Intermediate students should be able to generate reports from their databasesoftware (ie not just print the output from queries). Some candidate�s reports wereeffectively presented but did not contain data from related tables. Many of thecharts/graphs submitted were weak, often too small, lacking in detail or with aninappropriate (ie not meaningful) legend being inserted. Many lacked appropriate titles.The spreadsheet scenario should be complex enough to support the generation of morethan one type of chart. Frequently students produced only one pie chart rather thandifferent types of charts.

M1 - Sorting on Multiple Fields

Candidates continue to produce several sorts but fail to produce one sort on multiplefields (primary sort on one field secondary sort on a different field) in either theirdatabase or their spreadsheet. Quite often candidates may have carried out a multiplesort but fail to produce evidence either in their printouts or through their explanations /annotations.

D3 - Complex Facilities

Many centres did not provide their students with scenarios wide enough to encompasscomplex facilities. The students will have demonstrated their ability to insert simpleformulae in P3. At Distinction level they should be capable of constructing morecomplex formulae eg percentages or formulae using brackets.Complex search criteria use AND or OR (and possibly NOT) � see page 40 of the specfor more detail. Filters can also be performed as long as they use logical operators. The


searches MUST be on related tables. Absolute cell referencing could include namingcells or 3D referencing in linked sheets.Occasionally more advanced techniques were employed which would have beenappropriate to a VCE student at the expense of evidence required for the Intermediatespecification.At Distinction level the criteria assume that the student has been taught about a range ofdatabase and spreadsheet facilities and that they can select the most appropriate fortheir purposes and reject the ones that do not meet their requirements. If they couldexplain what they used and why then they would be producing evidence for D1and D2.Few candidates were able to do this.


Unit 3 � Hardware and Software (Y203P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

This unit appeared to present the most problems for centres this series. Many centresappeared to have difficulty providing the resources (time, staff, access to systems) todeliver this unit effectively. Unfortunately we saw many �quick-fix� solutions to this unit,which did not provide adequate evidence that each student had configured their systemor in fact set up an operational system in the first place. In some instances centres hadissued photocopied screenshots for students to annotate. This was completely againstthe spirit of the GNVQ and did not evidence anything except that students couldannotate photocopies of screenshots.

Far too many centres allowed students to spend too long on html work to the detrimentof the real focus of the unit � the creation of an operational ICT system for a user.

Banner, P5 - Setting up Equipment

This unit requires students to produce �an operational ICT system configured to meetuser needs� (Banner). P5 requires students to show 'your ability to work safely whensetting up equipment'. Page 60 of the Intermediate specification (Essential informationfor teachers/Investigation) further explains how the subject should be taught. PreviousChief Moderator Reports have also explained what we would expect to see as evidencein a student�s portfolio.

There must be some evidence that the students have set up a system i.e. connected thehardware together - and completed it safely. The system they connect may be a differentone to that specified for their user in P1. This could be effectively evidenced byincluding a digital photo or sketch of the back of the system unit/tower with all ports etclabelled. The students could then write an account, using the diagram, of what they didto put their system together. A reliable witness can then authenticate that they did thissafely. ICT teacher / tutor, ICT technician or network / system manager would all bedeemed suitable. Alternatively digital photos, stage-by-stage diagrams or witnessstatement can back this up.

Students who do not correctly evidence the setting up of an operational ICT system willnot achieve a Pass Grade.

P1, M1 - User Needs

A significant number of candidates did not address this criterion particularly well. For P1the candidate must give a clear description of what the user wants from their system.Software, including both the operating system and applications software, should bedefined and ideally the purpose should be clearly stated eg �The Company would need aword-processing package to write their letters. I have selected XYZ software because..�. The software chosen will usually inform the hardware requirements. In many casesconfiguration requirements were not described. These could have been specified by theuser, or identified by the candidate. In either event, there should have been a clearexplanation as to how the configuration would meet the user needs.


At Merit level the students must supply detailed definitions of input and output devicesand there must be evidence that they understand what they have selected � and relatedit to their user�s needs. The assessor should be looking for more technical specifications� main processor ratings, speed versus storage capacity, benefits of one type of printerover another, etc.In many cases hardware and software details were taken directly off the Internet withoutany attempt to relate them to their user or re-phrase into the candidate�s own words.

P2, P3, M3, - Configuring the Operating System/Applications Software

In some centres the evidence for this was particularly weak. Candidates MUSTevidence all Pass criteria in order to achieve a Pass grade or higher.

P2 and P3 expect the candidate to demonstrate that they can alter the configuration ofoperating system and applications software. They should be able to evidence all of theelements of P2 and P3. The best evidence explains the process of doing what isrequired. This is generally done through a limited range of screenshots that have beenannotated with explanations of what they did (and why they did it). Ideally thescreenshots should show the configuration before and after the student has made thechanges. M3 looks for progression from the Pass requirements and expects additionalconfiguration evidence specifically geared to help their particular user eg keyboardshortcuts.Occasionally students have been producing a set of instructions, written to a third party,of how to carry out the process. Unfortunately this does not usually show that thestudents themselves have actually changed something on the system.There is no need to install software at this level. Students MUST evidence their use ofan electronic / on-screen help facility eg Microsoft Help, Office assistant, useful webpage, even on-line teaching packages.

P3, M2, D3 � Macro and Template

Evidence for these criteria tended to be weak. Evidence for these criteria tended to beweak. Many students got very confused between macro and template. There was lessconfusion where the macro did not launch the template.P3 expects that the student can demonstrate that they can set up a macro and atemplate. M2 requires them to explain how the macro/template works and why the userwould need them. Evidence for this could be a small number of annotated screenshotsshowing the creation of the macro at various stages and explaining what the macro didwhen it was run. At Merit level the students do not have to access html code (see page60 of the specification) but it is one way for more able students to evidence M2 and alsoto access the Distinction criterion D4.

D3 requires the candidate to demonstrate a higher level of understanding and toevaluate their macro and template from the point of view of their user. Rather than justrelying on others to reach these conclusions students could justify how their template /macro and toolbar / keyboard actions (D1) have helped their user become more effectiveand efficient. They could also explain how their actions ensure high-quality output egusing their knowledge of unit 1 to explain how the template ensures consistent corporatestyle.


At this level macros and templates should not be of poor quality. It should be easy to seewhat they achieve and how they help potential users.

P4, M2, M3, D2, D4 � HTML

These criteria show the same sort of progression as others in this unit yet centres stillappear to misunderstand the progression from Pass, through Merit to Distinction.

P4 requires the candidate to prepare a plan for an html program. This is an absoluterequirement and yet many students failed to produce any evidence for this at all. Theplan, which can be hand-drawn sketches or computer-drawn diagrams, should showtheir design for 3 to 5 pages. It MUST show (through notes and/or annotation) wherethey will incorporate ALL the components including sound and navigation routes (aminimum of two different types of link). Students aiming for higher grades would be wiseto plan for three types of navigation method in order to meet D2.

Merit level criteria assess the students� ability to realise their design using appropriatesoftware. M3 requires candidates to demonstrate that they can use html software totranslate their plan (P4) into the finished product (eg web pages). Students shouldprovide evidence to show their use of the software for example the process of creating ahypertext link between two pages. Annotated screenshots are usually sufficient. M2can be evidenced by the annotation of their web pages as viewed through a browser.The annotation should identify and explain the design features that they specified in theirplan (P4) � particularly the component parts � text, graphics, navigation routes andsound.

Distinction level criteria expect candidates to assess the quality of their work and toaccess html code, at least in the way that tags operate (see page 60 of thespecification). The student should look at their product from the point of view of the userand check that they can move around the site with ease. Evidence for D2 could be atest plan or feedback from users on text, sound, graphics and navigation. Somestudents identified errors in the program that they were able to rectify through changes inthe html code � this then successfully evidenced D4. Ideally students should evidenceD4 through before and after printouts (annotated to explain what they did). Somestudents edited macro code, others placed comments within parts of the program (use of).

Some centres successfully cross-referenced this work to one of the presentations forUnit 7 Multimedia. In these centres students had ensured that they produced theevidence for this unit but also added in the additional evidence required for Unit 7 eg P4storyboards.


Unit 4 � Design Project (Y204P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

This optional unit was more popular than last year. While some of the projects were farfrom stimulating the work submitted for moderation was of an appropriate standard forIntermediate and generally accurate in its assessment. Where centres had problemswith this unit it was because they failed to recognise that it was a design unit. Many ofthe evidence criteria focus on planning, testing and evaluating � things that moststudents do not enjoy. In some centres students tried to expand the work that had beendone for other units eg unit 2 or they were given a set of discrete tasks that together didnot form a project of sufficient complexity. The project must be sufficiently complex toallow the students to cover the EIGHT stages of systems development detailed onpages 65 to 69. Candidates must clearly evidence the process of designing, creating,testing and evaluating their product. To do this unit effectively they MUST spend sometime on P1 & P2 prior to implementation. Students MUST show that their product works.

Centres embarking on this unit must read the Essential Information for Teachers (pages71 to 73) as well as the WYNTL section (pages 65 � 69) and assessment evidence grid(p 70). Useful information is also provided in the �portfolio guidance� in the GNVQ ICTarea of the Edexcel website.

P1 - User/Purpose

Whilst most candidates were able to describe their user and provide sufficient evidenceto meet the Pass criteria higher grade students frequently did not spend enough time onthis section. Time spent here pays dividends in the quality of the final product and canproduce evidence for D1. Viewing this in a commercial sense can often help candidatesto produce better evidence � if the project were to be taken on what would need to beproduced for the user, what resources would be required, how long would it take (ie howmuch would it cost the company)?

P2, M2, M5, D2, D3- designing and planning

As with other units these criteria show progression. At Pass grade candidates mustshow that they can think through the project and break it down into its component partsto produce a plan. Candidates should try to include evidence for all the elements of P2.Merit grade requires much more detail. It might be useful for the students to imaginethat they are giving instructions to a third party who will produce the productcommercially. They should therefore guide them on what goes where and how userswill navigate through the product. Accurate storyboarding or sketches of spreadsheetlayouts/sketches of printouts will need annotating to describe their component parts andexplain why they are needed e.g. including a hit counter on their website to assesspopularity. Students must evidence that they are checking their progress against theirplanned timescale and MUST show that they completed their project on time. Logs oraction plans can be useful for this purpose; some students have successfully usedproject management software. Problems should not be ignored � D3 requires studentsto explain how they overcame them.At Distinction level rather than just relying on others to reach these conclusionscandidates could justify how their product helped their user become more effective and


efficient. They might like to produce user documentation that will tell the user how to usetheir product � and thus improve their efficiency and effectiveness. Estimating the timetaken for different tasks is difficult and will improve with practice. Reviewing theproposed timescale / work plan as the candidate progresses through the project willassist them in future projects. They need to understand that project management isessential for commercial activities and monitoring and revising their plans is part of thedesign process.

P3, P4 - Working Product

Frequently students omitted to show that what they had produced (a) worked as theyintended it to in their designs and (b) was what the user wanted. A detailed witnessstatement can back up evidence from screen grabs, printouts and studentnotes/annotations.Testing was not always explicit and most students needed to cover this in greater detail.Tests must check that the product was complete (have all the components required bythe user been included?), accurate (in terms of data entry, information generated etc)and operational (do all formulae, queries, navigation routes, etc work?).

D1 � Evaluation

As in other units evaluation was generally poorly evidenced. The candidate�s evaluationshould demonstrate their understanding of ICT systems analysis and design. Thiscriterion requires feedback from the user(s) on the appearance, ease of use, suitability,etc. The student MUST seek feedback on improvements � even if they feel that it couldnot have been done better. If they have looked at other commercially produced productsthen they may be in a better position to be critical of their own. They MUST consideralternative ways of achieving similar results e.g. by using different software, by manualmethods, etc.


Unit 6 � Graphics (Y206P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

Unit 6 continues to be a very popular unit and most work was of a good Intermediatestandard. Assessment was usually accurate and students appeared to have enjoyedtheir work. Overall some very good material was presented but weak candidates tendedto be very poor and would perhaps have fared better on the Foundation programme. Forsome centres suitable software was unavailable and students were limited in theirexperience of commercial graphics software.

Most students were better at producing graphics using vector-based software packagesthan bitmap-based packages. There was good evidence of using vector images, wherebasic shapes were effectively edited, filled and manipulated, however annotation toshow where the different facilities had been used was weak or omitted altogether.Bitmap evidence appeared to be limited to downloading a picture of something from theInternet. Graphics were often converted into bitmap format rather than drawn in asuitable program.

The basic philosophy behind this unit is that students understand the difference betweenvector-based graphics and bitmap-based graphics and recognise what the software canand cannot do. Unfortunately most students appeared to be unaware of the differencesor of the advantages and disadvantages of using the different types of software in theirwork. Before tackling their summative assessments students do need to be taught thetheory from the WYNTL and they should utilise all the tools and techniques listed onpages 88 and 89. Having done that they are then in a better position to select the mostappropriate tools for their purpose �and explain why.

This unit is about designing a graphic solution to a problem. It is as much aboutteaching problem solving skills as it is about producing good quality graphics. Studentsshould be presented with a problem rather than told that they are to produce a numberof images.

P1 � Description of the Problem

As in other units this criterion is key to success in the higher grades as well as at Passlevel. Students need to spend sufficient time planning their work to ensure they producegraphics that meet the user�s needs.


Unit 7 � Multimedia (Y207P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

Unit 7 remains the most popular optional unit and most work was of a good Intermediatestandard. Assessment was generally accurate and students appeared to have bothenjoyed their work and experienced a variety of multimedia software. Overall some verygood material was presented.

Banner - Two Presentations

In a very small number of centres students did not produce two presentations.Occasionally it was difficult to differentiate between individual and group presentationsand centres are advised to identify them more clearly. Edexcel or centre-devisedchecklists were used by a number of centres and this assisted the moderation processsignificantly.In other centres students appeared to share parts of the project rather than beingallocated their own section. The group project is designed to teach the student howimportant it is (in a commercial sense) for them to complete their task(s) in a teamactivity. They need to present evidence that they had a clearly identified role that theycompleted on time.

Banner, P4, M1, M2, D1 � User Interaction, Effective Presentations

Most presentations did not plan for different routes that the user might take. Highergrade students should be encouraged to explore different ways to present theirinformation so that the end product becomes more effective.

P4, P5, M3, Planning, Designing and Testing

As in other units many students are technically quite capable but remain poor atplanning and documenting their progress from design / drafting through to testing andrefinement of the finished product. Good quality annotations and explanations can raiseattainment in these criteria considerably.

Students need to be taught about copyright issues as many are now downloadingimages and text from existing websites and presenting them as their own work withoutany consideration of the legal issues surrounding this practice. Discussion of copyrightissues can support achievement of the Distinction criterion D3.


Unit 8 � Networks & Communication (Y208P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

This is another unit that requires students to actually undertake the setting-up ofcomputer hardware � in this case a simple network. In several instances evidence wasnot convincing and there remained considerable doubt as to whether the students hadactually done what was required. Several students wrote extended essays on networktopology � something that is not specifically required by the assessment evidence grid.In one centre the evidence submitted for all the candidates only addressed one passcriterion � P5 the social effects of WANs.

Centres offering this optional unit must ensure that the course is suitably resourced interms of hardware, software, staff time and expertise. The portfolio of evidence for eachstudent should contain evidence for all the banner requirements and each componentpart of each criterion.

P1, P2 � Simple Network and 2-way Communication

Some students wrote an observation of a third person constructing a network (eg a tutordemonstration). This was not appropriate, neither was a theoretical description of theway networks could be set up. Candidates must set up the connections and configurethe system themselves. Suitable evidence for this might be a step-by-step description ofthe set up with photographs and a detailed witness statement to identify the workundertaken. The network should function correctly and evidence of its functioning isexpected. A witness statement by the assessor and digital photos would ensurecomplete coverage of this aspect of the unit. A diagram of the network connections andtopology could also be included.

Some assignments moderated showed no evidence that the students actually sent andreceived messages across their networked system. Students must produce evidencethrough screen prints, photographs and /or detailed witness evidence that the messageshave been sent and that a peripheral has been used effectively from all nodes in thenetwork. Student commentary is expected as well as witness evidence.

P3, M2, D2 � Log of LAN and WAN Usage

Many students provided evidence of a limited range of services eg sending emails overa period of a few hours. Relatively few students demonstrated extended use ofnetworks over a longer period.At Pass level the student log should contain enough detail to prove their understandingof the underlying workings of the network eg using software, sending/receiving/handlingmessages, accessing files. It should document their use of a range of hardware andsoftwareAt Merit level the log should show their use of external services on WANs including theInternet eg, sending/receiving emails with attachments, copying/ transferring files, usingsearch engines, downloading files/images/software. The log must be kept for areasonable period of time to show competence and to fully explore a range of facilities.Notes in their log can show that they understand the underlying technology.


Observations from their log (eg regarding ftp) could contribute to their report on thesocial effect of WANs (P5, M4, D4).At Distinction level the student is expected to look critically at the way they worked, inproducing their work log and their report and identify ways of improving the process.Students could evaluate the construction of the work log (headings and layout), andhow/when they filled it in. They might include a critique of a supplied work log template.

P4, M3, D3 � User Guide

A relatively high proportion of students produced a guide to setting up a network insteadof a user guide. The user guide is designed to allow an inexperienced user to use theconstructed network to carry out a range of activities such as the ones identified for P3.It should be a separate document, clearly headed �User Guide� and referring specificallyto the network they have created. Narrative and screen shots are expected.At Merit level the guide should be ordered so that the user can find the information on allservices available on the network eg logging on, using networked software, sendingmessages, transferring files to another node, copying files from another user, how to usethe shared peripheral, etc. It might also address security issues such as passwords anduser privileges.At Distinction level the student should evaluate the guide from the point of view of theuser and ensure that they check that the instructions are clear and accurate. Use ofEnglish should be clear and correctly pitched at the intended audience. Feedback froman inexperienced user would be useful evidence here.

P5, M4, D4 � Report on Social Effect of WANs

These criteria were generally well covered although students aspiring to higher gradeswere occasionally limited in their attainment by writing frames or too prescriptive a list ofeffects to be studied. At Distinction students should consider a wide range of socialeffects (see p 108) amplified with further examples they select. It is important that thestudent�s opinions are clear in the report and judgements are justified even if they maynot correspond with generally accepted ideas.


Unit 9 � Modelling Numerical Information (Y209P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

This unit was one of the least popular optional units. The proportion of work that did notmeet National Standards was slightly higher than the average so there does still appearto be some difficulties in understanding the requirements. The comments below list themost common errors.

This unit should not be seen as �just more spreadsheets�. Both projects that thestudents work on should be modelling ones ie reproduce a system which involves somechanging process by applying a specific set of rules to a particular situation in order topredict what will happen. Financial simulations eg break-even analysis or stock controlsimulations, and simulations of games were popular amongst the small number ofentries. There is an expectation that the spreadsheets produced do solve the problem(P1) and are presented to an appropriate standard (P2), but several students failed tomeet these criteria.

Banner, P1, P2, M1, D1, D2, D3 � Specialised Functions

Several students failed to evidence appropriate use of the majority of the techniques inList 1 (at least eight of those listed in List 1 on page 117) and three of the techniques inList 2 (including a search). In some centres the problem presented wasn�t complexenough to permit students to use the appropriate number of techniques.

P1 � Description of the Problem

Only a few students were able to fully understand the problem and present it in their ownwords. The mathematical principles behind the models appeared to be beyond all butthe most able of students. These students were able to independently design, createand fully test a suitable solution and evaluate it from the user�s point of view. Fewstudents were able to suggest improvements.

P4, M3, D3 � Team Project

It was occasionally difficult to determine what part the student played in the team project.Sometimes students appeared to be working on the same element of the problem.Apart from identifying their role candidates are also expected to evaluate their role andthe role of others in producing a solution to the problem. Students generally found thisvery difficult.


Unit 10 � Database Techniques & Applications (Y210P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

Where centres did this unit there was obviously some knowledge of databases amongstthe staff as the work produced was of a good Intermediate standard and generally well-assessed. The comments below list the most common errors.

There is still some confusion about the content of this unit. Some centres appear tothink it is �just another unit 2� and concentrate, yet again, on structure, queries, reportsetc when they should be building on this knowledge and focusing more on producingcommercially-acceptable solutions. In these centres screens were either not evidencedor poorly designed, testing was far from comprehensive, evaluation was weak/non-specific and students had no idea of what a user guide or technical document lookedlike.

Centres should concentrate on teaching students the skills to produce an effectivedatabase that functions as required and has a selection of data entry / query screensthat are user-friendly. The Essential Information for Teachers (page 130) contains someuseful advice on how to reduce the amount of time that students take on data entry. Thebanner indicates that three related tables are required. Students are expected todemonstrate understanding of normalisation (page 126).

Good students should be producing an effective functioning database and covering thetechniques listed on page 126 of the specification. They will also consider in more detailthe interface between user and computer, and incorporate into their designs some of thefeatures listed on page 127. Their documentation will be more professional and thesecandidates will have produced notes and examples that illustrate what they wouldinclude in both technical and user documentation (see page 127). These notes mayillustrate the different writing styles they would use for the two documents and there willprobably be diagrams/screenshots/printed output that will show how they would illustrate/ explain aspects of their database and its use. Testing will be explicitly addressed andcandidates will have a good grasp of the range of tests that need to be conducted (page127-128).


Unit 11 � Programming (Y211P)Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

This unit was one of the least popular optional units. Where centres did this unit therewas obviously some programming expertise amongst the staff as the work producedwas of a good Intermediate standard and generally well-assessed. The comments belowlist the most common errors in a small sample of work.

Banner � Three Scenarios

A proportion of students failed to provide evidence for three modifications. In thesecases students could not achieve a Pass grade. In one centre students created, notmodified, two programs from scratch. Students are required to modify programsdesigned by someone else; they are not expected to design a programme from scratch.They are expected to test that their modifications work and clearly document theirchanges. Candidates are expected to produce programs that include sequence,selection, and iteration and centres must therefore ensure that they provide studentswith three suitable scenarios with new criteria for programs - in accordance with page139 of the specifications (essential information for teachers).

P2, P3, M1, M5, D1, D2 - Documenting Modifications and Testing

Only the best students were able to organise their work to clearly document the processof designing, modifying and testing the three programs. In these cases their designsshowed evidence of sequence, selection and iteration, structure charts, pseudo code ordata flow diagrams were provided and the students documented their work with plenty ofscreenshots. Their test documentation showed a good understanding of testprocedures.


Unit 12 � Computer-Aided Design (Y212P)

Please also read the notes on general portfolio issues.

This unit was the least popular of all the optional units. The comments below identify themost common errors in a very small sample of work.

Banner � Computer-Generated DrawingsThose centres that presented work for moderation were generally able to provide theirstudents with access to appropriate software. In one instance this was through a work-related project in an off-site location.Students are required to produce a minimum of three drawings � one plan, one 3Dmodel and one illustration. The better projects viewed the unit as a commercial projectfor one client, the portfolio being presented to the client on an agreed deadline. In suchscenarios students must then focus on the quality of their finished product and onexplaining to a third person how they arrived at their final designs (one centre had a realclient - students used presentation software to explain the realisation of their ideas).Poorer projects merely instructed the candidates to produce three separate, non-relateddrawings and students did not demonstrate a consistent quality or style in the method ofpresentation. Students are required to present their CAD drawings using current industrystandard conventions (i.e. as described in BS 308 / BS 8888). This must include the useof either a first or third angle projection drawing. Students may also produce anisometric or oblique perspective drawing in order to achieve the higher grade.

P1, P2 � TechniquesWhilst they are not expected to use all the CAD, image manipulation and 3D model toolslisted on p 143-145 they should be able to use the majority of them � and at leastconverse about them in their planning. A very small number of centres failed to produceany evidence for image manipulation.This unit is about designing a graphic solution to a problem. It is as much aboutteaching problem solving skills as it is about producing good quality graphics. Studentsshould be presented with a problem rather than told that they are to produce a numberof images.

M2 � AccuracyStudents need to produce clear evidence that they have constructed their drawingobject/s using specific techniques to obtain accuracy of dimensions. Evidence of this canbe achieved by annotated screen grabs showing the input commands of the co-ordinatesystem used at various stages of the design. The production of the drawing should showany scale, ratio and dimensions applied to the CAD drawings.


Further copies of this publication are available fromEdexcel Publications, Adamsway, Mansfield, Notts, NG18 4LN

Telephone 01623 467467Fax 01623 450481

Order Code G013843 June 2003

For more information on Edexcel qualifications please contact ourCustomer Response Centre on 0870 240 9800or email: � HYPERLINK mailto:[email protected] �[email protected]�or visit our website: � HYPERLINK http://www.edexcel.org �www.edexcel.org�.uk

�

� PAGE �47�

Homepages Home Page - GNVQ Intermediate Information & …homepages.shu.ac.uk/~edsjlc/ict/specifications/edexcel/... · 2006-10-10 · In some centres, printouts were not each clearly

Documents